Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Re: Theo, Pineapplebunnybounce, Locke,

@theo, you are sooo confused. Absence of evidence thing only applies if you don't claim that your god has evidence.

But if your god affects the world in anyway, it must generate some form of evidence. So absence of evidence is evidence of your god's inability to affect this world.

I don't understand what your remark means concerning absence of evidence. Can you clarify this point?

He was saying absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence. I said it doesn't apply if you want to claim that god affects this world.

And your second point is true, but that evidence could still ultimately be overturned by a later case of intervention. So yes, it's evidence, but that's not definitive proof that such a god couldn't affect the world.

My bad, I shouldn't have said god's inability to affect the world. But that there is an absence of this effect. And that would imply god exists but doesn't affect this world, out of unwillingness or inability we cannot conclude.

I don't see the point of speculating into what evidence may present itself in the future, I do get the point you're trying to make.